Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bellevue council directs staff to prepare resolution for 2025 Mobility Implementation Plan update
Summary
Staff and the Transportation Commission presented a 2025 update to Bellevue’s Mobility Implementation Plan — adding pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS), updating bike intersection metrics, refreshing data to 2044 and integrating the 2009 pedestrian/bicycle plan — and council directed staff to prepare a resolution to adopt the update.
Bellevue’s Transportation Department and Transportation Commission on Nov. 18 presented a recommended 2025 update to the Mobility Implementation Plan (MIP) and the council directed staff to prepare a resolution to adopt the update for future consideration.
Presenters said the update adds pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) metrics, updates bike level of traffic stress (BLTS) to include intersections, refreshes baseline data and extends the planning horizon to 2044 to align with the comprehensive plan. The Transportation Commission voted unanimously on Sept. 11 to recommend the update.
Staff emphasized that the MIP is a non‑funding guidance document: it identifies performance target gaps, project concepts and scoring/prioritization criteria that feed into the Transportation Facilities Plan (TFP) and the capital improvement program (CIP). Staff and commissioners said the update preserves trail maps and incorporates the 2009 pedestrian and bicycle transportation plan as an appendix while modernizing metrics and targets.
Council members pressed for clarity on how the MIP relates to land‑use code requirements and whether the MIP is prescriptive for frontage improvements; staff said the MIP provides performance targets and guidance but is not retroactive and does not override existing land‑use standards. Staff said the PLTS metric uses a “speed limit factor” (estimated at 1.2x the posted speed where universal speed data are unavailable) combined with traffic volumes and buffer/sidewalk widths to rate pedestrian comfort on a 1–4 scale.
Council concerned with practical outcomes asked whether corridors that cannot meet targets should have alternate parallel routes, how scoring will prioritize projects (safety, equity, connectivity, land‑use support, presence on Vision 0 high injury network), and how the MIP’s guidance will be implemented through a proposed transportation master plan and through the TFP/CIP funding process.
At the end of the study session councilmember motioned, and the council voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution to update the MIP and return for future action.
